Sometimes hypocrisy is better than the alternative. And it may not even be hypocrisy to take advantage of policies that you disagree with but can’t get rid of.
We are seeing Democratic senators take advantage of the lame duck session, even though lame ducks are a travesty that shouldn’t be in the Constitution. Lame ducks are members of Congress who weren’t reelected, but still vote from Election Day until Jan. 3.
Obviously, if you lose or retire, you should never vote again. Election on Tuesday; losers move out Wednesday; winners move in Thursday; new Congress available Friday. It may take longer for a smooth transition between presidents, but a lame duck president can’t do much damage without a lame duck Congress.
According to Will Rogers, “It’s like where some fellows worked for you and their work wasn’t satisfactory and you let ’em out, but after you fired ’em, you let ’em stay long enough so they could burn your house down.”
Lame ducks have been in the Constitution for 237 years, and like many constitutional problems, the solution seems simple but impossible. The question is whether senators who oppose lame ducks in principle are hypocrites if they try to confirm as many judges as they can before the turnover. Democrats are doing that right now, as Republicans did when they were in the same position.
How about gerrymandering? Republicans gerrymandered more now, but Democrats used to be the champions. One of most blatant recent Democratic gerrymanders was here in New Mexico. Probably the only reason Gabe Vasquez beat Yvette Herrell this year is because New Mexico Democrats gerrymandered the 2nd District in 2021. I won’t get into details, because I wrote about it in several columns.
Are Democrats hypocrites to criticize Republicans for their many gerrymanders and then do the same themselves? Indeed they are. And I’m glad, because I voted for Vasquez.
Unfortunately, New Mexico Democrats missed the point. The idea is to gerrymander one last time, but close the door so that Republicans can’t ever gerrymander back. Democrats put a loophole in their nonpartisan redistricting commission, but then failed to close it for Republicans.
This problem applies to many government reforms. The party in power is torn between the desire to stop the other party from cheating and the desire to keep cheating themselves. Of course, politicians should be opposed to cheating on principle, but if you believe in your policies, it’s tempting to cheat to put them into practice.
Longtime readers of this column know that one of my pet peeves is bad electoral systems, and there are plenty more that need reforming. But with every reform, there’s the standard tradeoff between principle and expediency.
Should U.S. senators filibuster even if they oppose the filibuster? Should opponents of the Electoral College use it to their advantage if they can’t get rid of it? Should you join one of the two bad parties, even if you think one is made up of suicidal fools and the other of corrupt sycophants? Do you vote in the two-party system, even though the parties often conspire to choose the two worst candidates in the country?
We could go on with smaller issues. It’s absolutely crazy to have elections on a workday instead of a weekend, but does that mean you shouldn’t vote on Tuesday? Well, I personally never vote on Tuesday, thanks to early voting and absentee ballots, but some states are too dumb to allow those.
Another policy that should be reformed is presidential pardons. The Constitution allows pardons to lessen the harsh effects of strict justice, but there should be no corrupt pardons, such as for family members. But the text of the Constitution doesn’t have that limit. Donald Trump and Bill Clinton issued questionable pardons, and now Joe Biden has followed suit.
Was it hypocritical for Biden to pardon his son, Hunter? Absolutely. The chief law enforcement officer shouldn’t give special treatment to one person just because it’s his son.
Hunter Biden is a jerk who tried to take advantage of his father’s position. I don’t think he deserves a pardon any more than other minor criminals, but what father wouldn’t put love over principle if the Constitution allows it?
In every congressional session since 2017, Tennessee Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen has proposed a constitutional amendment to limit corrupt pardons, including pardons of family members. Congress ignores these proposals, but maybe they shouldn’t this time.
Instead of complaining about hypocrisy, we ought to prevent it. Ban corrupt pardons. Reform the filibuster. Fix many election flaws, including the Electoral College, lame ducks and plurality winners. And if Congress won’t fix gerrymandering everywhere, the New Mexico Legislature should close the loophole and get rid of it here.
